Accepting Compromise - A Sign Of Weakness Or Moving Forward To A Shared Stronger Future.

[KDA20]

Introduction: Seeing some of the heated debates here on GaG and even in the outside world has encouraged me to ponder conflict resolution.

(1) Let's Open With A Joke

A man was driving on a twisty mountain road approaching a tight turn, a car comes the other way driven by a woman and she screams "Pig". He leans out his window turning his head and roars "Bitch" . He goes around the corner and crashes into a pig standing on the road.

(2) A Historical thought

I was born in 1969, so for the sake of the take, I became politically aware in the early 1980s, if someone had told me that in 2016 there would be an elected assembly in Northern Ireland controlled by a coalition of the Democratic Unionist Party (Unionist/Loyalist tradition) and Sinn Fein (Republican/Nationalist tradition) plus The ANC (African National Congress) would be the ruling party in South Africa, I would have looked at them funny and asked what drugs they were on. What aided these seismic shifts was that most sides moved away from their polar positions in these two countries to the negotiating table to discuss compromise and a shared hopefully stronger more peaceful future.

Ian Paisley (DUP) and Martin McGuinness (Sinn Fein) "The Chuckle Brothers"

Nelson Mandela (ANC) and F.W. De Klerk (National Party - SA President 1989 to 1994)

(3) The Hamster On The Wheel In The Cage

I sometimes feel this is happening when the discussions heat up on "Certain Subjects " on GaG and in Real Life. Group A feels discriminated against by Group B while Group B who often agree that Group A has been discriminated against feel the measures that have been taking to redress this have gone too far and now Group B is being discriminated against.

In short, Group A is campaigning for equal rights for Group A and feel that Group B stands in their way meanwhile Group B wants protects the rights of Group B because they feel Group A are taking more rights for Group A at the expense of Group B.

(4) Entrenched Polar Positions

So we seem to have two sides in an issue who at first seem to be diametrically opposed

They state their case then withdraw to the trenches and started hurling grenades

All the while eyeing each other suspiciously across "No Man's Land"

(5) Negative Argument Leads To Impasse And Never Ending Circles

We now have both sides throwing abuse at each other, battle lines drawn and more often than not ends with both sides storming off in different directions. To go back to the analogy of World War 1, it feels like the description of great battle, 8 months long, 1.7 million dead , gains 2.3 miles.

(6) Do Both Sides Have Anything In Common?

Here on GaG there are a group of egalitarians who when these discussions start throw in the "Middle Ground" or "Common Ground" option.

Egalitarianism according to Wikipedia:

" Egalitarianism (from French égal, meaning "equal")—or, rarely, equalitarianism or equalism is a trend of thought that favors equality for all people."

Egalitarians point out that Group A are campaigning for the rights of Group A and Group B are campaigning for the rights of Group B, so why not join together and campaign as one for the rights of all.

(7) In Conclusion - Compromise?

We have two groups of people who I feel are essentially searching for the same thing just starting from two different places so surely the objective is to find a place through negotiation and shared thoughts in that big expanse of middle ground in between the two polar positions where they can join together moving forward to a constructive future as the people of Northern Ireland and South Africa did in the last 30 years.

Thanks for reading this myTake.

[hellionthesage]

I would disagree. Now I do think that negativity is not necessarily conducive to a reasoned and rational argument and that it serves no purpose really other then to convince the other person that said individual is the enemy and therefore cannot be trusted or reasoned with. However compromise implies that the truth lies in the middle of the dispute. This is not the case, at least not always. Some times the truth is much closer to one side then the other, other times one side is right and the other wrong and other times still both are just completely wrong and the truth is so far removed from both view points. So what we should be doing is not compromising (never muched like the term, I feel the term is used frequently to refference a weakening of something for a reason (compromised security, integrity compromised etc.)) but rather arguing, reasonably, with facts and data and logic until the truth is revealed. Only then can one actually claim what is right and what is not.

[KDA20]

Great answer - Any idea on how to solve disputes where answer is not in the middle of the middle area

[hellionthesage]

Facts and statitics can prove an argument to be valid or not. Reasoned argument (I tend to ask a lot of questiones to point out disparities in statements and arguments) and thought experiments (taking an idea and running it through a mental simulator to see what the outcome would likely be) can help create a cogent argument. However this only solves the argument (the intellectual aspect of the discussion) not the dispute (the emotional investment in the argument). So while I can argue from the intellectual aspect I don't know how one can solve the dispute. The fact is that is a choice of the individual. Reminds me of a quote, "you learned something, which always at first feels like you have lost something" (I want to say that was bertrand russell). Basicly the person becomes so invested in that idea it becomes a part of them and a foundation for other thoughts and ideas so the thought that it could be wrong becomes a personal attack as well as being frightening as it brings a lot of

[hellionthesage]

uncertainty with it (it being a foundational block/spring board for other ideas that themselves are a foundational block/spring board for others.) So honestly the only way to solve a dispute is to find away to confront the idea prove it but do so in a manner that doesn't feel like an attack I suppose, frame it in away so that they can come to the conclusion themselves also might help. However in the end I think its up to the individual to learn to be willing to let ideas go. I think avoiding the problem or blocking creates an echo chamber that reinforces the false idea. So the best thing honestly is a cultrual shift that promotes debate rather then dicourages it as well as an understanding that ideas should be held for only as long as they are pertinent ie backed by reason and facts. So, not really anything that will help in the immediate but perhaps later down the line.

[KDA20]

I agree that an idealogical shift is often needed and will probably take a long time probably needing a third party to say that there is a good chance neither side is completely right so lets analyse what is going on and try to pick a common shared future in a process that is much wider than attempting to find common ground, it is up to and including possibly finding a whole new approach.

[hellionthesage]

True, as I said I think the best approach is removal of emotional investment in the idea (though to be fair my pesronality type is particularly prone to discard ideas with little emotional investment in them, so I could be biased.) Which allows for a greater freedom of thought and by extention a looser grip on them in case they prove to be incorrect which in turn leaves them more open to discussion (you really don't see people fighting tooth and nail for something they are not sure about.).

[KDA20]

Yes good observation

[hellionthesage]

Thanks, I do what I can! :) (thanks for asking the question)

[Boomer123]

I think if you compromise people keep expecting you to and you continue to get walked on. I feel like I have compromised my life away

[Anonymous]

I gotta admit that joke was hilarious. Not even going to front.

Group A: Females

Group B: Males

image.cdn.ispot.tv/.../...out-leg-lift-large-8.jpg

Will there be compromise? No. Should there be? Yes.

[KDA20]

Group A and B could be blacks and whites as well

[KDA20]

Sorry forgot to say thanks for reading

[Opinion Owner]

Yeah I thought about that.

Welcome.

[ObscuredBeyond]

"You can always begin again..."

But only if you live that long, God allows it, and you play your cards right. Otherwise, you could do everything society says you're supposed to, and still have to Go Back to Start. Begin again... to what end?

What is a reboot, with no workaround to prevent another crash? It's the Wheels on the Futility Bus going round and round. Until just like Bill Murray, I too kinda want to shoot that groundhog.

[OrdinaryGentleman]

Compromise for both sides is the best form of understanding. I just finished watching the movie Bridge of Spies and it eloquently puts into context the exact point you are making. Anyways i have never really let my ego get in the way of an argument... with the exception of being online.

[Zorax]

Great Take, and I agree with Buddha :D